M/s. GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO- 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3019/MUM/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8434 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C P PATNAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H MUMBAI . . , / BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND , SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO. 3019/MUM/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LTD., 103, LIBERTY APT., 80-A, SAROJINI RD, VILE PARLE(W) MUMBAI 400 056. PAN: AAACG 2780 N VS. ITO 4(1), MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! # ' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C.P. PATNAIK $ # %& / DATE OF HEARING : 30-10-2012 '() # %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-10-2012 * / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 31-03-2006 OF THE CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI: 1.THE CIT (APPEAL) IV HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE R ULING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 R.W.S. 142 (2A) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS REPRESENTATIVE HAD AT TENDED AND FURNISHED DETAILS ON 04-11-2004. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IV HAS ALSO ERRED IN SU STAINING DISALLOW OF BROKERAGE & COMMISSION AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,90,81,859/- PAID BY T HE APPELLANT TO VARIOUS SUB BROKER. 3. HE FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9,59,846/- PAID TO M/S. KETAN SHETH & CO. IN CONNECTION WITH THE BROKERAGE ALLOWE D ON MUTUAL FUND ISSUES OF SHARES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IV ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE ADDITION OF CLAIM OF INTEREST RS. 55,009/- PAID TO JAYKAL TRADING LTD., BY CONSID ERING THE SAID EXPENDITURE FOR PRIOR PERIOD NOT RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER AP PEAL. I.TA. NO. 3019/MUM/2006 GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LTD. 2 5. HE FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF F OREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,23,221/- INCURRED BY MR. AMIT K SHETH DIRECTOR OF THE COMPAN Y WHO WENT ABROAD TO PROMOTE THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 6. THE SAID LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,00,000/- MANAGEMENT FEES PAID TO M/S. SALECHA CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., 7. HE ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,08,829/- BEING BAD DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLAN T COMPANY OF THE AMOUNT DUE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT RECOVERABLE BY THE A PPELLANT COMPANY. 8. HE ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25,00,000/- PAID TO M/S. SALECHA CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., TOWARDS RESEARCH & DEVELOPME NT EXPENDITURE. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IV ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULINGS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 1,48,03,5 00/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF I.T. ACT 1961, AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME. 10. HE FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING THE LOSS OF RS. 85,83,809/- INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT C OMPANY ON SALE OF SHARES. 11. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) IV HAS ALSO ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/- OUT OF INTEREST PAID AMOUNTING TO RS . 6,28,862/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAD UTILIZED INTEREST BEARING FUN D FOR THE PURPOSE OTHER THAN GENUINE BUSINESS NEEDS. 12. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVE, LEAVE, ADD, ALTER ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 30-10-2012. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). IT(SS )A NO. 01/MUM/2008 SUNNY SOUNDS P. LTD., 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/ - ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, +$ DATE: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012 I.TA. NO. 3019/MUM/2006 GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LTD. 3 TNMM * * * * # ## # %, %, %, %, -,)% -,)% -,)% -,)% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE !,% % //TRUE COPY// *$ *$ *$ *$ / BY ORDER, . .. . / / / / / DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI